Shri. Mahadeo Dnyanu Salunkhe (Patil) v. Janata Shikshan Sanstha And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rrpillai WRIT PETITION NO. 11815 OF 2015 Shri Mahadeo Dnyanu ...

Petitioner Salunkhe (Patil) Vs.

Janata Shikshan Sanstha and Another ...

Respondents Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner.

Mr. Umesh Mankapure a/w. Mr. Nilesh Wable for Respondent No.5. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE :

18th MARCH 2024 P.C.

1.

This writ petition takes an exception to the order dated 30th April 2015 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Sangli in application filed for interim relief in appeals preferred for challenging Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2014 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in connected three appeals. The said appeals were filed for challenging order passed on 13th November 2013 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli Region in change reports Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date:

2024.04.04 13:05:47 +0530 RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI 1/3

which were rejected and directions were issued under clause (2) which reads as under :

"02. The order passed by the Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli Region Sangli in Inquiry Application (Change Reports) Nos. 414/2001, 473/2004, 447/2005, 448/2005, 449/2005, 1079/2007 is hereby confirmed".

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the directions issued in Clause 2 of the operative part of the judgment dated 31st December 2014 is concerned, the same is challenged by way of an independent petition in this Court and the same is pending. Writ Petition No. 11534 of 2013 is pending in this Court and by way of interim relief said directions are stayed.

3.

By Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2014 the appeals filed by respondent no. 1 is rejected and the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner on 13th November 2013 is confirmed to the extent of the order passed on the change reports. By the said order the change reports were rejected. The impugned order further 2/3

directs that order dated 23rd January 2015 is continued during the pendency of the appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 23rd January 2015 stay was granted to the orders impugned in the appeals.

5.

It is not in dispute that the main appeals are ready for final hearing. The order impugned in the petition granting stay has remained in operation from 30th April 2015.

6.

For the reasons recorded above, I do not see any ground to invoke powers under Article 227 of the Constituion of India to interfere in the impugned order. Since the appeals are also ready for final hearing, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order at this stage.

7.

Hence, Writ Petition is disposed in the above terms. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3